About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)
washington turn its back on the broad middle class to favor a relatively few at the top in democracy? >> well, what has relreally changed is the organization of the american politics particularly the organizations that representative the deepest pocketed members of american spoipt what we've seen is an organizational revolution over the last 30 years that has meant that business and wall street and ideological conservative organizations that are pushing for free market policies have all become much more influential. and at the same time a lot of organizations that once represented the middle class, labor unions, broadbased civic organizations and sort of organizations at the local and the grassroots level, including social movements, have all lost enormous ground. and so it's that imbalance, that shift, that i think this sort of underlying pressure that playless out in our politics today. the way we describe it in the book as as if the ecosystem of american politics has changed. and everyone in american politics and democrats republicans, liberals, conservatives has had to adapt to this new w
engineed by powerful players in washington and on wall street. you can read how they did it in this book "winner-take-all politics" by two of the country's top political scientists, jacob hacker and paul pierson. they were drawn to a mystery every bit as puzzling as a crimi drama "how washington made the rich richer and turned its back on the middle class." quote -- "we wanted to know how our economy stopped working to provide prosperity and security for the broad middle class." and that's what you saw. >> i thinkss a lot of people kn. the top one or two wrongs have shot up into the stratosphere while all of the other ones have stayed re or less in lplace. it's really astonishing how concentrated the games of economic growth have been. >> you know the startling statistic that we have in the book is that if you take all of the income gains from 1979 to 2007, so all the increased household income over that period around 40% of those gains went to the top 1%. and if you look at the bottom 90%, they had less than that combined. and it's not just a one or a two-year story. i mean, we've see
running the house. that's what prevailed before americans voted, when deadlock reigned in washington, little got done, and the country was frustrated and angry. are we in for more of the same? the talk we are hearing in washington sounds altogether too familiar. so let's consider what's ahead with two people of different philosophies about what should be done. bob herbert was a long-time liberal columnist for "the new york times" until he retired last year and became a distinguished senior fellow for the national think tank demos. he's been on the road for months now, reporting for his forthcoming book, "wounded colossus." reihan salam writes "the agenda," that's a daily blog for the conservative national review online. he is a policy advisor at the think tank economics 21 and a columnist for reuters. he is also the co-author with ross douthat of the much talked-about book, "grand new party: how republicans can win the working class and save the american dream." welcome to both of you. >> great to see you, bill. >> bob, what will you remember about this election? >> well, the first t
incident you left washington and you went to nevada. that was for a fund-raiser. that's what they're doing and if you think of that many fund raisers, here's an interesting statistic for you. back in 1984, ronald reagan was incumbent president of the united states. he was running for reelection. his campaign had to raise money for the party even though he was taking the federal grant as everyone has until this year in the general election. ronald reagan attended in that year four fund raisers. >> compared to -- >> 221, so we have a president -- this is not an attack on obama. we have a president who is to some extent, not doing their job because they have to be off fund-raising. the romney people felt the same way. romney was heard to be complaining in his campaign that he couldn't go out and meet voters and do what he thought he had to do as a can at because he had to spend all of his time in closed rooms of wealthy people to fund raise in order to get his ads up for his campaign. he couldn't campaign. there's a great irony here and so you have two issues here. one is the time that the pr
down i-5, which is the interstate that goes through oregon and washington. and dark, middle of the night. and, you know, i love country music on the radio. and nobody bothers you, you know? you're just, everything's under control. and his eyes appeared in the windshield. and i'm psychologically aware enough to know that, "uh-oh, this guy is coming back. and he's coming back. and you need to deal with it." and that was the genesis of that second book. i started to write down what i was really trying to think about to reconcile, "what was that?" i mean, there we were. he would have killed me. i would have killed him. and both of us probably didn't want to do that. i mean, as soon as we got out of that situation, we'd go, like, "what was this all about?" and especially the vietnam war, you never knew what that was all about. he at least had the moral, whatever the word is, side of saying, "well, these guys are in my country. and we want them to leave." but it astounds me how young men will get into that situation. and they'll do the job. both of us were going to do it. >> both
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)